Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet in Suite 4200E, Conference Room, Fourth Floor, East Tower, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC on Monday, July 1, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, July 2, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2002 Basic (EA-1) and Pension (EA-2B) Joint Board Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2002 Pension (EA-2A) Examination will be discussed.

A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions which may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and review of the May 2002 Joint Board examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.

The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1 p.m. on July 1 and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements must notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and must submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All other persons planning to attend the public session must also notify the Executive Director in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be faxed, no later than June 26, 2002, to 202-694-1876, Attn: Executive Director. Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to the Executive Director: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal Revenue Service, Attn: Executive Director N:C:SC:DOP, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.

The purpose of this project is to remove a direct threat to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish species and their designated critical habitat along a 1.5-mile section of Grouse Creek Road, while maintaining a viable access route through the Grouse Creek corridor.

The need for the project is based on minimizing road related impacts to water quality and fish habitat while continuing to provide road access. The Grouse Creek Road is in close proximity to Grouse Creek in areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity and productivity. Grouse Creek contains chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, all of which are species listed as “Threatened” under the ESA. The Burgdorf Junction Fire Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Report (2000) indicated that the Burgdorf Junction Wildlife of 2000 was stand-replacing within 90 percent of the Grouse Creek drainage. Post-fire BAER inventories (2000) identified many road problems on the Grouse Creek Road. The Forest Service corrected them shortly after the fire, with the exception of the proposed relocation.

The Burgdorf Roads Analysis (2002) found that the section of road to be relocated is within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), runs parallel to Grouse Creek through a steep canyon, and is resulting in direct sediment delivery to Grouse Creek from erosion of road surface and fill material. Surface erosion and associated sediment delivery from this section of road is adversely affecting designated critical habitat for ESA listed species and is of particular concern. If the road is left in its current location, active erosion of road surface and fill material cannot be avoided.

Forest Service personnel intensively reviewed the proposed relocation alignment on the ground and determined it best met the objectives of minimizing impacts to fisheries, while minimizing encroachment into the roadless area and providing access in the Grouse Creek corridor.

The Grouse Creek Road provides access to an active mine, a seasonally staffed fire lookout, several trailheads, dispersed campsites and California Lake, which provides fishing and camping opportunities. The Forest Service has validated the need to maintain suitable access via the Grouse Creek corridor based on the information identified above.

Idaho County has made a RS 2477 assertion on the Grouse Creek Road. The validity of their claim has yet to be decided, and early settlement of the claim is not foreseeable. This limits the ability of the Forest Service to close the Grouse Creek Road to vehicle use.

The Forest Service proposes to relocate a section of the Grouse Creek Road (Forest Service Road 50325) upslope on gentle ground. A 1.5-mile section of road would be relocated; currently 1.3 miles of this road is within RHCAs. This would require 2.9 miles of new road construction, of which 2.4 miles would be within the Crystal Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. The exiting 1.5 miles of the Grouse Creek Road and an additional 0.4 mile of associated unclassified spur road would be obliterated.

The existing road is located in a corridor between the Crystal Mountain and Chimney rock IRAs. The proposed road relocation would affect a total of 172 acres of the Crystal Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area, that portion lying between the new road and the roadless boundary to the east. To minimize this effect, Forest Service proposes to adjust the Chimney Rock Inventoried Roadless Area boundary to the west, realigning the IRA boundary along the new road corridor. The Payette National Forest Plan (1988) allocates the portion of the Crystal Mountain IRA that would be altered to general forest management, which allows development including road construction. The PayetteNational Forest's Draft Revised Forest Plan (2000) proposes to manage the Crystal Mountain IRA under an Aquatic/Terrestrial Active Restoration Management Prescription Category (MPC 3.2). This proposed action is fully consistent with that direction.

The proposed road relocation project would not involve any removal of merchantable timber; all cleared timber would be used or left on site. Field reconnaissance identified very little, if any, merchantable timber within the new construction road right-of-way; therefore, there will be no timber sale involved with this project.

The proposed action meets recent Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction requiring a Roads Analysis before new road construction or changes in road management may take place on a National Forest (FSM 7712.1, 7712.12b, and 7712.13). FSM 1925.04b, identifies that it is the responsibility of the Regional Forester to serve as the Responsible Official for the following decision on a road reconstruction project in an IRA: “road realignment is needed to prevent resource damage by an existing road that is deemed essential for public or private access, management, or public health or safety, and where such damage cannot be corrected by maintenance.” The proposed action meets the description above and the Regional Forester has reviewed the proposed project and agreed to serve as the Responsible Official.

This project is a National Fire Plan Rehabilitation and Community Restoration Project.

The responsible official is the Regional Forester of the Intermountain Region.

The decision to be made is whether to relocate the Grouse Creek Road, and if so, where the new road segment should be located.

The Payette National Forest is conducting scoping for issues the Environmental Impact Statement should address. Comments provided by the public and other agencies will be used to develop issues to be addressed. The public is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials during the analysis prior to the decision.

Preliminary issues identified by the Forest Service interdisciplinary team include effects of building a road into an Inventoried Roadless Area, and short term effects to threatened and endangered species associated with road construction and obliteration.

Public participation will be important at several points during the analysis, particularly during scoping of issues and review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. The scoping process will identify potential issues and issues to be analyzed in detail, and will lead to the development of alternatives to the proposal.

Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the project record and available for public review.

The second major opportunity for public input is with the DEIS. The DEIS will analyze a range of alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative. The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in February 2003. EPA will then publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register . Public comments will be invited. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). In addition, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986), and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues raised by the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

In the Final EIS (FEIS) the Forest Service will respond to comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, and environmental consequences addressed in the FEIS, which is expected to be completed in May 2003, along with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the final decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for it in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215.

Basin Electric is proposing construction of an asynchronous tie that would connect the eastern and western transmission grids near Rapid City in Pennington County, South Dakota. This project is known as the Rapid City Tie project. The Rapid City Tie Project will include approximately 23 miles of 230 kV transmission line, a line terminal bay at the South Rapid City Substation, a line terminal bay at the New Underwood Substation, and an asynchronous tie converter station. The project is located just south of Rapid City and the transmission line extends eastward for approximately 23 miles. The Rapid City Tie Project is anticipated encompassing approximately 325 acres of land including 285 acres for the transmission line (a 100-foot right-of-way is assumed) and 40 acres for the converter station. The project is required to meet the growing needs for power of Basin Electric's membership in South Dakota and in northeastern Wyoming. RUS may provide financial assistance to Basin Electric for this project.

RUS has concluded that the impacts of the proposed project would not be significant and the proposed action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not necessary. RUS, in accordance with its environmental policies and procedures, required that Basin Electric prepare an environmental report (ER/Environmental Analysis) reflecting the potential impacts of the proposed facilities. The Environmental Analysis, which includes input from Federal, state, and local agencies, has been reviewed and accepted as RUS” Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in accordance with 7 CFR 1794.41. Basin Electric published notices of the availability of the EA and solicited public comments per 7 CFR 1794.42. The 30-day comment period on the EA for the proposed project ended May 6, 2002. Comments were received on the EA from the following agencies: South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT); South Dakota Department of Fish, Game and Parks (SDDFG&P); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and Planning Department, City of Rapid City (Rapid City PD). Basin Electric has agreed to follow Federal, state, and local agency recommendations (SDDOT, SDDFG&P, COE, USFWS, NRCS, and Rapid City PD) and secure all necessary permits prior to constructing and operating the proposed project.

Based on the EA and the Basin Electric's commitments to follow all agency recommendations, RUS has concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect to various resources, including important farmland, floodplains, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat, air pollution and water quality, noise, electrocution of birds. RUS has also determined that there would be no negative impacts of the proposed project on minority communities and low-income communities as a result of the construction of the project. RUS believes that there are no significant unresolved environmental conflicts related to this project.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this Notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0572-0125 pursuant to the Paperwork Reductions Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

For FY 2002, $2.5 million in grants will be made available for the construction and installation of facilities and for other costs as RUS deems necessary to provide local dial-up Internet services in rural areas where it currently does not exist. This program is authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950 aaa.

Applications will be accepted as discussed previously in the Dates section of this notice. All interested parties are strongly encouraged to contact the RUS official listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this notice to discuss its financial needs and eligibility, prior to sending an application to the address listed in the Addresses section of this notice. RUS will make available, to interested applicants, an application guide that further details the requirements and procedures for submitting an application. Applications will be scored and processed on a competitive basis.

Grant funds may be used to finance the acquisition, construction, and installation of equipment, facilities, and systems to provide local dial-up Internet service in rural areas where it currently does not exist. Grant funds may also be used to fund lease costs for transmission equipment, facilities, and systems for up to two years.

The maximum amount of a grant award to an applicant under this program is $400,000. The minimum amount to be considered is $10,000.

As used in this notice, the term Internet means a world wide collection of interconnected computer networks and users that share a compatible means of interacting with one another for the purpose of exchanging electronic data.

As used in this notice, the term local dial-up Internet service means a connection to the internet made using a voice grade circuit to the local public switched telephone network (PSTN) that does not incur any additional or per call charges. Where the PSTN does not support, as an engineering matter, local dial-up access, the Administrator of RUS will consider satellite or other methods of access as meeting the intent of this definition.

As used in this notice, rural area means any area of the United States not included within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population in excess of 20,000 inhabitants.

For FY 2002, $2.5 million in grants will be made available to eligible applicants. Grants will be awarded to eligible applicants based on their score (starting with the highest scoring application) in comparison to other applications until the $2.5 million appropriation is utilized in its entirety. The grants will be awarded on a competitive basis, based on the scoring criteria outlined below.

Grants may be made to legally organized entities providing, or proposing to provide, local dial-up Internet services in rural areas. Eligible entities may be public bodies, commercial companies including limited liability companies, cooperatives, nonprofits, and limited dividend or mutual associations.

No match funding is required.

(1) Project Sustainability. An applicant shall provide RUS with satisfactory evidence to enable the Administrator to determine that the project utilizing grant funds will be sustainable for a minimum of five years. Factors used in making this determination include, but are not limited to:

(i) Evidence of sufficient revenues from the system in excess of operating expenditures (including maintenance and replacement); and

(ii) Reasonable assurance of achieving market penetration projections upon which the grant is based.

(2) Nonduplication. An applicant shall provide RUS with satisfactory evidence to enable the Administrator to determine that no local dial-up internet service, without regard to quality of such service, exists in the area proposed to be served by the applicant using grant funds.

Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions of this notice and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must submit a completed Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” a narrative grant proposal, and all required supporting information and documents. An application must include a project description that contains plant designs, a subscriber forecast, and the basis for that forecast. The narrative must also specifically and clearly address the scoring criteria set out below. Other items include:

(1) Certified financial statements, if available;

(2) 5 years of pro-forma financial information, evidencing the sustainability of the project;

(3) An environmental report, satisfactory to RUS;

(4) Depreciation rates, based on current industry standards, for the equipment being financed (acceptance of such rates will be subject to RUS approval);

(5) A sketch or map showing existing and proposed service areas;

(6) A description of the current level of service available;

(7) Information on the owners and principal employees' relevant work experience that would ensure the success of the project; and

(8) All other required forms for Federal assistance and compliance with other applicable Federal statutes.

All applications for grants must be delivered to RUS at the address listed above or postmarked no later than August 20, 2002 to be considered eligible for FY 2002 grant funding. RUS will review each application for conformance with the provisions of this Notice. RUS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Applications conforming with this Notice will then be evaluated competitively by a panel of RUS employees selected by the Administrator and points awarded as described in the Scoring Criteria section below. The applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended.

Grant awards will be made based on the following scoring criteria as determined by RUS:

(1) The need for services and benefits derived from services (up to 40 points). This criterion will be used by RUS to score applications based on the documentation in support of the need for services, benefits derived from the services proposed by the project, and local community involvement in planning, implementing, and financial assistance of the project. RUS will consider the extent of the applicant's documentation explaining the challenges facing the community; the applicant's proposed plan to address these challenges; how the grant can help; and why the applicant cannot complete the project without a grant.

(2) The economic need of the applicant's service area as determined by per capita personal income by County, as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, at www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ (up to 40 points). Applicants will be awarded points as outlined below for service provided in each county where the per capita personal income (PCI) is less than 70 percent of the national average per capita personal income (NAPCI):

(i) PCI is 70 percent or greater of NAPCI; 0 points;

(ii) PCI is less than 70 percent and greater than or equal to 60 percent of NAPCI; 10 points;

(iii) PCI is less than 60 percent and greater than or equal to 50 percent of NAPCI; 20 points;

(iv) PCI is less than 50 percent and greater than or equal to 40 percent of NAPCI; 30 points;

(v) PCI is less than 40 percent of NAPCI; 40 points;

(3) Project services USDA designated EZ/ECs (Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities) (10 points) or USDA designated Champion Communities (5 points).

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On December 7, 2001, March 29, and April 12, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (66 FR 63521, 67 FR 15175 and 19391) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2).

1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.

2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Secretary of Commerce, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.

3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce.

1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of quality management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education and health care. The Board will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Board of Overseers.

2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.

1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

2. The Board will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one day in duration.

3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.

1. Nominations are sought from the private sector as described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership.

According to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), all fishers who participate in a Category I or II fishery contained in the List of Fisheries (LOF) final rule (67 FR 2410, January 17, 2002) must be registered in the MMAP. The MMAP provides an authorization for commercial fishers which allows the incidental (i.e., non-intentional) taking of marine mammals pursuant to the MMPA during the course of commercial fishing operations. To qualify for this authorization, fishers who participate in a Category I or II fishery must register in the MMAP. (For a complete description of requirements for Category I and II fisheries, consult 50 CFR 229.4). Information collected under the MMAP, as well as from other sources, provides the basis for identifying and determining the level of incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations relative to the allowable take level, or potential biological removal level, for each marine mammal stock.

Section 118 (c)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(5)(A)) states that “The Secretary shall develop, in consultation with the appropriate States, affected Regional Fishery Management Councils, and other interested persons, the means by which the granting and administration of authorizations under this section shall be integrated and coordinated, to the maximum extent practicable, with existing fishery licenses, registrations, and related programs.”

In recent years, NMFS has integrated its MMAP with other licensing systems in the northeast for the state and Federal components of the American lobster trap/pot fishery, the Federal portion of the squid/mackerel/butterfish trawl fishery, and the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Federal gillnet fisheries. NMFS has also integrated several west coast fisheries, and NMFS is now integrating additional state and Federal fishery permitting and licensing systems in the eastern United States.

The goals of the expanded integration program include assuring consistency in registration procedures across a greater number of east coast fisheries, increasing the number of registrants to better reflect the level of participation in the fisheries for monitoring purposes, and conducting outreach to the fishing industry with regard to MMPA requirements. By using data from existing fishery licensing programs, the MMAP integration will reduce the registration burden on the fishing industry while better facilitating the protection and conservation of marine mammals. In a licensing system that is integrated with the MMAP fishers will no longer have to submit an MMAP, current fishery permit holders registration form, renewal form, or processing fee to NMFS in order to receive or validate their MMAP Authorization. Certificates.

NMFS is pursuing the integration of MMAP registration based on the fishery listings in the 2002 LOF. Many of these fisheries include both a state and a Federal component. For 2002, only the fisheries with a Federal FMP administered by the NMFS Northeast Regional Office and the pelagic longline fishery administered under the Highly Migratory Species FMP will be integrated. Northeast fisheries with FMPs to be integrated include the American Lobster, Atlantic Bluefish, Atlantic Herring, Monkfish, Northeast Multispecies, Spiny Dogfish, Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish, Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass, and Tilefish. Of those fisheries, only those permit holders who indicated use of gear types that fall within the 2002 LOF will be integrated. NMFS is continuing to work toward integrating the MMAP registration for fishers who participate in the federal fisheries in the southeast region.

In order to integrate state-managed fisheries, NMFS is obtaining fishery license-holder information from individual states. NMFS has requested and received data from the east coast states of Maine through Florida.

Once a database is established with the license-holder information from the state and Federal permit databases, NMFS will mail MMAP Authorization Certificates and marine mammal injury/mortality reporting forms to each permit or license-holder. The certificates will provide a MMAP authorization for all fishers who participate in an integrated Category I or II fishery, provided that the fisher holds a valid state or Federal fishing permit or license for the affected regulated fishery.

Since integration must be accomplished by linking existing state and Federal permit or license databases to the NMFS MMAP database, fishers who participate only in unregulated fisheries (i.e., fisheries for which there are currently no state or Federal permits), must still register according to the procedures specified in the 2002 LOF. For example, the hagfish trap/pot fishery in New England is currently an unregulated fishery, and it falls under the new Category II listing for the Northeast trap/pot fishery. Therefore, a fisher who participates only in the hagfish trap/pot fishery in New England will be required to send in the MMAP registration form. However, if a hagfish trap/pot fisher also participates in a regulated fishery which is integrated under the MMAP, such as the American lobster fishery, NMFS will integrate registration for that permit holder for the hagfish fishery along with the regulated fishery. Thus, it will not be necessary for these fishers to submit a second registration for hagfish. A fisher who participates in state and Federal fisheries not yet integrated with the MMAP registration system must continue to send in the registration form to NMFS.

The Government of the United States has agreed to increase the current Designated Consultation Level (DCL) for Category 433 to 12,000 dozen. To the extent used, the 2003 DCL for Category 433 will be reduced by 1,000 dozen, the equivalent amount of the increase.

The level does not apply to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) originating goods, as defined in Annex 300-B, Chapter 4 and Annex 401 of the agreement. In addition, this consultation level does not apply to textile and apparel goods, assembled in Mexico, in which all fabric components were wholly formed and cut in the United States, entered under the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9802.00.90.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 66 FR 65178, published on December 18, 2001). Also see 66 FR 59580, published on November 29, 2001.

In 1957, the U.S. Public Health Service initiated a study to locate natural chloride seeps and springs and to determine the contribution of these chloride sources to the Red River, to which the Wichita River is a tributary. In 1959, the USACE recommended measures to control identified natural chloride sources. Congress authorized plans for chloride control in 1966. This project was known as the Red River Chloride Control Project (RRCCP). A Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the RRCCP dated July 1976, of which the Wichita River was a portion, was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on May 18, 1977, and published in the Federal Register on May 27, 1977. Since the 1976 FES, proposed project outputs have changed. Target chloride concentrations of 250 mg/l or less 94% of the time at Lake Texoma and 98% of the time at Lake Kemp were originally established for the proposed project. However, project modifications described in the supplement would affect design effectiveness of the plan evaluated in the 1976 FES. As such, an environmental reevaluation was approved in 1997, and the NEPA scoping process was initiated in 1998. The proposed plan is expected to meet the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) secondary drinking water standard of 300mg/l chloride 40% of the time at Lake Kemp.

Effectiveness of constructed portions of the project were evaluated by a Congressionally authorized panel, in accordance with Public Law 99-662, to assess the improvements in water quality assumed in the economic reanalysis of the proposed project. The panel submitted a favorable report to the Federal Public Works Committees of the House and Senate in August 1988 indicating that Area VIII was performing as designed. As noted above, design changes have been developed for the proposed project that would lessen impacts on stream flow, water quality, and chloride removal compared to the proposed project evaluated in the 1976 FES. In addition, potential direct and indirect impacts have been identified that were not addressed in the FES.

During the NEPA process for the DSFEIS, several issues were identified as concerns by the public and commenting natural resource agencies. Major issues addressed in this document include: (1) Hydrological biological, and water quality issues concerning fish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, and the wetland/riparian ecosystem of the Wichita River, Lake Kemp, and Red River above Lake Texoma to the confluences of the Wichita River; (2) Lakes Kemp, Diversion, and Texoma components, including chloride/turbidity relationships, chloride/fish reproduction relationships, chloride/plankton community issues, chloride/nutrient dynamics issues, and impacts on recreational values; (3) water quality and quantity impacts on Dundee Fish Hatchery below Lake Diversion; (4) selenium (Se) concentrations and impact on biota; (5) man-made brines and associated reduction; (6) Section 401 water quality issues; (7) mitigation as it relates to habitat losses from construction of proposed project components; (8) Federally-listed threatened and endangered species; and (9) unquantifiable/undefined impacts.

Changes in the project base condition have also occurred since the 1976 FES. Due to growing concern in the Wichita River Basin about the availability of water and its effect on economic growth and development, the Red River Authority of Texas (RRA) in cooperation with the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) initiated a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a brush control and management program to increase water yield. The goal is to restore large areas of brush to native grasses, but leave brush buffers and habitat corridors composed of mesquite and juniper. The results of the study revealed that implementation of the proposed brush control program may provide a net increase in watershed yield at Lake Kemp. The brush control program has currently been included in Texas Senate Bill 1 and the Region B Water Plan. The supplement has assumed a brush management factor of 50% implementation as its future condition without chloride control.

Fourteen alternatives were developed by the USACE for achieving lower concentrations of chlorides in the Wichita River. The objective of the 14 USACE action alternatives was to improve water quality in the Wichita River to a point where it may be economically useful for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) developed an additional twelve (12) alternatives that were also considered by the USACE. The objectives of these alternatives were to lower chloride control impacts by reducing brines pumped to Truscott Brine Lake and eliminating potential selenium impacts, as well as replacing stream habitat and lessening the impact of zero flow days on fish populations.

From all the developed alternatives, USACE Alternative 7a was selected as having the greatest net NED benefits. However, concerns regarding this alternative have been raised by the USFWS and TPWD. Due to higher economic, technical, and regulatory viability, Alternative 7a best serves the purpose and need for the proposed action and is the proposed plan.

The DSFEIS has been coordinated and approved by offices and directorates affected by or interested in the subject matter, including the Office of Counsel and Executive Offices.

The proposed project is authorized under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended, which provides the Corps authority to assist local sponsors with small flood damage reduction projects.

The current recommended plan consists of a combination of measures including: levees, floodwalls, several non-structural measures, and internal drainage measures. Natural environmental consideration measures that are included in the plan are: aligning levees and floodwalls setback from the creek, as possible; avoiding any in stream activity between September 1st and June 15th; implementing erosion run-off reduction measures; retaining existing vegetation, as possible; planting replacement and additional riparian and upland vegetation; and other minor stream environmental improvements.

Alternative considerations include: No Action; Non-Structural Measures (Flood Plain Management, Flood Insurance, Relocations, Flood Proofing, etc.); Reservoirs/Wetlands; Diversion Channels; Channelization; Channelization and Berms; and Levee/Floodwalls. Alternatives are assessed/evaluated from engineering, economic, and environmental (physical/natural, social/community, cultural resources) perspectives.

Resumed study scoping letters were coordinated on August 24, 1999, October 5, 1999, and January 14, 2000. A number of agency and public workshops and meetings have been conducted. A local public meeting was held at the Penfield Town Hall on February 15, 2000.

The initial public response to the current study was substantial. Many interests indicated the project should be looked at from a watershed perspective and that all interests be involved, and that natural restoration measures should be considered. Many want a watershed development management plan. Some are concerned about project impacts upstream and downstream of the Panorama Valley area. Others do not think that funding should be expended to protect interests which are built in a flood prone area; they think flood prone developments should move or be moved out of the flood prone areas. Flood prone development interest would like to see some form of community development flood protection. Most want to see the natural integrity of the streams maintained or improved, as possible, for fish and some wildlife to be able to continue to utilize and pass through the area.

Since Federal, State, and local interests have been involved with reinitiation of the study and coordination is already being conducted and a local public meeting held; no new/additional formal initial scoping meeting is scheduled.

It is expected that the Supplemental Draft EIS will be made available to the agencies and public about October 2002.

The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

On May 3, 2002 we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 22415) the “Draft Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy” for review and comment. Comments regarding the draft strategy were required to be received on or before June 17, 2002. During the comment period, we received a request to extend the comment period.

In response to this request, we are extending the comment period for the “Draft Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy” through July 1, 2002.

Electronic Filing Address: You may submit comments by E-mail to estuary@usace.army.mil. Comments should be in one of the following formats: Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII. The subject line for submission of comments should begin with “Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy comments from [insert name of agency, organization, or individual].”

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-717 “Open Access Same Time Information System” (OMB No. 1902-0173) is used by the Commission to carry out the general authority in Sections 309 and 311 of the Federal Power Act 1978 (PURPA)(16 U.S.C. 825h). On April 24, 1996, the Commission issued two separate but interrelated final rules. The first rule, Order No. 888 required that all public utilities that own, control or operate facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce to have on file open access non-discriminatory transmission tariffs that contain minimum terms and conditions of non-discriminatory service. The second rule Order No. 889, required utilities to establish electronic systems to share information about available transmission capacity. Under this rule, each public utility (or its agent) that owns, controls, or operates transmission facilities had to create or participate in an Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) that provides open access transmission customers (current and potential) with electronic information about transmission capacity, prices, and other information necessary to obtain open access nondiscriminatory transmission services. The rule also established standards of conduct to ensure that a public utility's employees engaged in a transmission operations function independently of those employees engaged in wholesale purchases and sales of electric energy in interstate commerce. In addition, specific requirements with respect to various standards and protocols were identified to ensure that the OASIS system presents information in a consistent and uniform manner. In subsequent orders OASIS has been modified as it became necessary to adopt uniform business practices and communication protocols. In Docket No. RM01-10-000, the Commission proposed new standards of conduct to apply uniformly to both natural gas pipelines and transmitting public utilities, a matter still pending before the Commission.

The compliance with these requirements is mandatory. The reporting requirements are found at 18 CFR Part 37.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data with exception to the standards of conduct which are the subject of a separate proceeding as noted above.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

In the Commission's initial submission to OMB it included an estimate based on information obtained from technical journals of the annualized Capital/Startup costs necessary for setting out a world wide web site on the Internet. Additional costs included developing the procedures for calculating ATC and operating an OASIS, and creating the necessary links between control center computers and OASIS computers. To annualize, the Commission assumed that the system would last conservatively for three years. On an annual basis, the Commission estimated startup costs to be $190,000 per system. For operating and maintenance costs (“ongoing”), the Commission estimated the costs to be $110,000 per system. In addition, the Commission assumed that it would take six staff members working full time (five to cover reporting requirements and one to maintain the record keeping requirements).

However, six years have passed since that initial estimate and three years since the last submission to OMB. OASIS has been in full operation for several years as the Commission noted in its last submission, therefore, it will only consider costs for the continued operation of OASIS. (Operations and Maintenance costs include the use of staff to maintain the web site plus human resources necessary for developing and handling data for OASIS. The Commission had assumed in its last submission that only 4.5 personnel (a reduction from the six as noted above) were necessary for staffing, but with improvements in information technology, consolidations within the industry and sharing of staff time between the OASIS site and control room operations, it is anticipated that staffing levels has been further reduced to an average of four personnel. The total annualized cost of the OASIS requirement is 140 respondents × operations and maintenance costs + staffing costs (using a personnel cost of $70,000). The latter figure represents an average of mean annual earnings for professions in Information Technology and Engineering as reported in Federal government occupational statistics for the year 2000. (140 respondents × $390,000 = $ 54,600,000 for total costs).

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which generate, treat, and store hazardous waste.

Title: National Waste Minimization Partnership Program; EPA ICR No. 2076.01.

Abstract: EPA is establishing a national program to encourage the minimization of hazardous waste through source reduction and recycling. Participation in the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program is completely voluntary. EPA will use four forms to collect information from participants, called partners, which can be prepared and submitted by hard copy or electronically. Participation begins when an Enrollment Form is submitted and accepted by EPA. The form asks for basic site identification information as well as information on the company's waste minimization goals under the program.

Once in the program, partners will also have an opportunity to complete and submit an optional, one-time Application for Certificate of Past Accomplishments. This form enables partners to notify the Agency of waste minimization accomplished in the past. Partners also can submit a one-time Application for Certificate of Accomplishment when they accomplish the goals the established for their participation in the program. These certificates will enable the Agency to confirm a partners' progress and measure the overall success of the program. Certificates provide the basis for the Agency to recognize partner accomplishments in a formal ( e.g., at an awards ceremony or by congratulatory letter) manner, if appropriate. Recognizing partner achievements is important to help EPA spur other partners on to reduce more waste.

Partners also may submit an optional, one-time Case Studies Submission Form. The form enables a partner to describe its waste minimization techniques, implementation problems, lessons learned, benefits, and relevant implications. The case studies will assist the Agency in better understanding waste minimization approaches and technologies. The information may also help the Agency in sharing lessons learned and effective strategies among the facilities generating hazardous waste, in order to promote continued and effective waste minimization efforts. Sharing effective waste reduction strategies with others is a fundamental objective of the partnership program.

Because the program is voluntary, EPA expects that companies would enroll only if their benefits under the program outweigh the costs. Although EPA expects partners to experience a minor burden under the paperwork requirements of the program, the Agency fully expects many companies to realize substantial cost savings (typically more than enough to offset their paperwork costs) through implementation of their waste reduction initiatives. (EPA evidence suggests that cost savings of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars is not unusual for a large corporation.)

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: EPA estimates the annual respondent burden for the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program to be 3,280 hours and $203,306. EPA expects that, in the first year, 60 companies will enroll, and 90 will enroll in each subsequent year. Thus, at the end of the first year, there will be 60 existing partners, 150 at the end of the second year, and 240 at the end of the third year. For purposes of the ICR's burden calculations, EPA has averaged the number of new and existing partners over the three-year period to conclude that there will be, on average, 80 new partners annually and 150 existing partners annually. The disaggregated burden per form is estimated below:

(1) Enrollment Form —EPA estimates that, on average, 80 new partners will fill out this form each year. EPA further estimates that ten percent of existing partners will notify EPA to modify their waste minimization goals each year ( i.e., 10% × 150 = 15 partners per year). The total annual hourly burden for this form is estimated to be 2,723 hours. The total annual cost for this form is estimated to be $168,221.

(2) Application for Certificate of Past Accomplishments —EPA estimates that two-thirds of new partners will submit an application each year, or 54 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this form is estimated to be 109 hours. The total annual cost for this form is estimated to be $6,878.

(3) Application for Certificate of Accomplishment —EPA estimates that 80 percent of existing facilities will submit this one-time form, or 64 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this one-time form is estimated to be 128 hours. The total annual cost for this one-time form is estimated to be $8,152.

(4) Case Studies Submission Form —EPA expects that 50 percent of existing facilities will submit this one-time form, or 40 partners per year. The total annual hourly burden for this one-time form is estimated to be 320 hours. The total annual cost for this one-time form is estimated to be $20,055.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

EPA has developed draft Information Quality Guidelines, in response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guideline directing all Federal agencies to develop and implement their own guidelines by October 1, 2002 (67 FR 8451, February 22, 2002). The draft Information Quality Guidelines are available at the EPA web site, www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines . Comments may be submitted by web site, e-mail, mail, facsimile, or in person. EPA encourages you to submit your comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please visit the EPA web site, www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines , or the previous notice (67 FR 21234-21235, April 30, 2002) for instructions on how to submit your comments.

Notice of this action appeared in The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by Congress in 1969 through passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and is an agency within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The Chairman of CEQ, who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, serves as the principal environmental policy adviser to the President. CEQ coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. CEQ also oversees Federal agencies implementation of NEPA through promulgation of regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and through interpretation of statutory requirements. CEQ also has a variety of other responsibilities under NEPA, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and other statutes.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554, hereinafter referred to as Section 515) directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.” OMB has required agencies to publish draft guidelines no later than May 1, 2002. The Council on Environmental Quality's guidelines will be published in the Federal Register and posted on the agency's web site at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

The following are CEQ's “Proposed Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Council on Environmental Quality”:

A. CEQ will ensure that all information it disseminates to the public meets all applicable standards of quality, including objectivity, utility and integrity. CEQ hereby adopts this standard of quality, as a performance goal, and adopts the following procedures for the incorporation of information quality criteria into CEQ information dissemination activities.

1. Objectivity and Utility of Information.

As defined in Section C, below, “objectivity” is a measure of whether disseminated information is “accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased;”. “Utility” refer to the usefulness of the information to its intended audience. CEQ is committed to disseminating reliable and useful information. Before disseminating information, CEQ staff and officials will ensure that the information has been reviewed in an information quality review process that is proportional to the importance of the information. It is the primary responsibility of the professional staff person drafting information intended for dissemination, or supervising the preparation of such information, to use the most knowledgeable and reliable sources reasonably available to confirm the objectivity and utility of such information.

2. Much of the information CEQ disseminates consists of or is based on information submitted to CEQ by other Federal agencies. Prior to dissemination of such information, responsible CEQ staff will obtain a written statement from the agency submitting the information attesting that the information meets the agency of origin's information quality guidelines.

3. In seeking to assure the “objectivity” and “utility” of the information it disseminates, CEQ will generally follow the basic clearance process established internally by the Chief of Staff and, where appropriate, the government-wide clearance process coordinated by OMB. Where appropriate, substantive input will be sought from within CEQ, other offices within the EOP, other government agencies, non-government organizations, and the public. When CEQ determines that the transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information's usefulness from the perspective of the users of the information, including the public, CEQ shall ensure that transparency has been appropriately addressed and provided. In determining the appropriate level of transparency, CEQ should consider the types of data that can practicably be subjected to a reproducibility requirement given ethical, feasibility, and confidentiality constraints.

4. The CEQ staff member or official responsible for the dissemination of information should generally take the following basic steps to assure the “objectivity” and “utility” of the information to be disseminated:

a. Preparing a draft of the document after consulting the necessary parties, including government and non-government sources, as appropriate;

b. Determining necessary clearance points;

c. Determining where the final decision shall be made;

d. Determining whether peer review would be appropriate and, if necessary, coordinating such review;

e. Obtaining clearances; and

f. Overcoming delays and, if necessary, presenting the matter to higher authority.

5. For information regarding risks to human health, safety and the environment and information that CEQ determines is “influential” as defined in Section D(3) of these guidelines, CEQ adapts the standards set forth by Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A) & (B) to CEQ's information quality review process. Thus, CEQ will use the “best available,” peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices”, and “data collected by the accepted methods or best available methods (if the reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies use of the data).” Such information shall be presented in a manner that is comprehensive and informative.

CEQ will also determine whether peer review would be appropriate and, if necessary, coordinate such review. Further, CEQ will provide sufficient information about such methods as related to influential information that a qualified member of the public could reproduce the analysis, subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision and subject to ethical, feasibility and confidentiality constraints.

6. CEQ will disseminate information only after appropriate internal clearances are obtained from the Office of the General Counsel and the Chief of Staff.

7. “Integrity” refers to the protection of information from unauthorized, unanticipated, or unintentional modification, thus preventing information from being compromised by corruption or falsification. Within the EOP, the Office of Administration has substantial responsibility for ensuring the “integrity” of information as defined in these guidelines. CEQ also has an Administrative Officer that coordinates and works with the EOP Office of Administration to ensure the integrity of information. These offices implement and maintain new computer software and hardware systems and provide operational support for systems and system users.

8. Computer security is the responsibility of the EOP Office of Administration's Chief Information, Information Assurance Directorate.

This Office oversees all matters relating to information integrity, including the design and implementation of the security architecture for the EOP, periodic audits of security architecture components, and review and approval of changes to the technical baseline.

9. As an agency under the EOP, CEQ is an integral part of the overall EOP network, and is an active participant in all aspects of information integrity at EOP. CEQ adheres to both law and OMB IT security policies, along with EOP security policies and operational processes for the protection of data and information.

10. Information quality standards applicable to the dissemination of information by CEQ may be waived temporarily by the Chair of CEQ, the General Counsel, the Chief of Staff, or his/her designee in urgent situations (e.g., imminent threats to public health, homeland security, or of significant environmental impact) to the extent necessary to respond to the urgent situation. Any waiver shall provide for public notice, to the extent practicable under the circumstances of the waiver, and a determination of the point at which the normal application of information quality standards will resume.

1. Any person who is affected by information disseminated by CEQ that he or she believes does not comply with these guidelines may seek correction of that information by submitting a request for correction to CEQ within 90 days of CEQ's dissemination of the information.

2. Any request for correction must be submitted by mail to the Deputy General Counsel, CEQ, 722 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via electronic mail at info_quality@ceq.eop.gov . The request for correction should be as specific as possible regarding the information that is the subject of the concern and the reason(s) for the concern. Affected persons shall clearly indicate that the communication is a “Request for Correction” under Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Persons should specify the information that is being contested, the aspect of the information that needs to be corrected, explain how they are affected by the information, how the information identified does not comply with applicable information quality guidelines, and what corrective action is sought. Persons should provide all supporting information necessary for CEQ to correct the information. CEQ may decline to respond to requests that appear to be frivolous and/or duplicative.

3. CEQ will respond to any request within 60 days of receipt of the request in accordance with paragraph C.1, and may at that time provide an initial response that additional time is necessary to consider the request, to consult with the source of the information or other agencies, or to obtain additional information from the requestor or the public. If CEQ finds that additional time is necessary, CEQ shall seek a mutually agreed-upon extension of time and, if agreement is not obtained, shall include in its initial response a deadline for a final CEQ response based upon the factors that require additional time.

4. CEQ's final response will set forth whether CEQ agrees or disagrees with the concern expressed and, if it believes the concern has validity, how CEQ will correct the information or otherwise address the concern. Subject to applicable law, rules and regulations, CEQ may take corrective measures through any appropriate and effective means, including personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases, or postings on the CEQ website to correct a widely disseminated error or address a frequently raised request. Corrective measures, where appropriate, should be designed to provide reasonable notice to affected persons of such correction.

5. If CEQ responds that the information meets the requirements of the applicable guidelines and no correction is needed, the affected person may request reconsideration of the response from the CEQ General Counsel within 60 days of receipt of the response. Such a request for reconsideration shall clearly indicate that the communication is a “Request for Reconsideration” under Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and set forth, as specifically as possible, the reasons for the affected person's disagreement with CEQ's response. The request for reconsideration should be mailed to the CEQ General Counsel, 722 Jackson Place, NW., Washington DC 20503 or e-mailed to info_quality@ceq.eop.gov CEQ will respond to any such request for reconsideration within 60 days of receipt of the request.

1. “Affected” persons are those who use, or may benefit from or be harmed by, the disseminated information.

2. “Dissemination” means agency-initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public, whether in written, electronic, or audiovisual form. Dissemination does not include distribution of information or materials that are:

a. intended for government employees or agency contractors, consultants or volunteers;

b. intended for U.S. government agencies;

c. produced in response to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or similar law, or requests from Congress or other government officials;

d. correspondence or other communication limited to individuals or to other persons within the meaning of “person” as forth in paragraph 7, below;

e. archival records;

f. responses to subpoenas or other compulsory document productions;

g. documents prepared for adjudicative proceedings.

3. “Influential” when used in the phrase “influential information” refers to disseminated information that CEQ determines will have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions.

4. “Information,” for purposes of these guidelines, means any communications or representation of facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms. This definition does not include:

a. opinions, where the presentation makes clear that the statements are subjective opinions, rather than facts; however, any underlying information disseminated by CEQ upon which the opinion is based may be subject to these guidelines;

b. information originated by, and attributed to, Non-CEQ sources, provided CEQ does not expressly rely upon it. Examples include: Non-U.S. Government information reported and duly attributed in materials prepared and disseminated by CEQ; hyperlinks on CEQ's website to information that others disseminate; and reports of advisory committees published on CEQ's website;

c. statements related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of CEQ and other materials produced for CEQ employees, contractors, agents, volunteers or alumni;

d. descriptions of the agency, its responsibilities and its organizational components;

e. statements, the modification of which might cause harm to the national security, including harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United states;

f. statements of Administration policy; however, any underlying information disseminated by CEQ upon which a statement is based may be subject to these guidelines;

g. testimony or comments of CEQ officials before Congress, courts, administrative bodies, or the media;

h. investigatory material compiled pursuant to U.S. law or for law enforcement purposes in the United States; or

i. statements which are, or which reasonably may be expected to become, the subject of litigation, whether before a U.S. or foreign court, or in a dispute resolution proceeding.

5. “Integrity” refers to the security of information—protection of the information from unauthorized access or revision, to prevent the information from being compromised through corruption or falsification.

6. “Objectivity” addresses whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, including background information where warranted by the circumstances.

7. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or legal representative, an organized group of individuals, a regional, national, State, territorial, tribal, or local government or branch thereof, or a political subdivision of a State, territory, tribal, or local government or a branch of a political subdivision, or an international organization;

8. “Quality” encompasses “utility”, “objectivity”, and “integrity”. Thus, the government-wide guidelines and CEQ's guidelines may refer to these four statutory terms, collectively, as “quality”.

9. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public.

The Consumer Advisory Council was established in 1976 at the direction of the Congress to advise the Federal Reserve Board on the exercise of its duties under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and on other consumer-related matters. The Council by law represents the interests both of consumers and of the financial services industry (15 USC 1691(b)). Under the Rules of Organization and Procedure of the Consumer Advisory Council (12 CFR 267.3), members serve three-year terms that are staggered to provide the Council with continuity.

New members will be selected for terms beginning January 1, 2003, to replace members whose terms expire in December 2002; the Board expects to announce its appointment of new members by year-end. Nomination letters should include a résumé and information about past and present positions held by the nominee; a description of special knowledge, interests or experience related to community reinvestment, consumer protection regulations, consumer credit, or other consumer financial services; and the full name, title, organization name, organization description, current address, telephone and fax numbers for both the nominee and the nominator. Individuals may nominate themselves.

The Board is interested in candidates who have familiarity with consumer financial services, community reinvestment, and consumer protection regulations, and who are willing to express their viewpoints. Candidates do not have to be experts on all levels of consumer financial services or community reinvestment, but they should possess some basic knowledge of the area. They must be able and willing to make the necessary time commitment to participate in conference calls, and prepare for and attend meetings three times a year (usually for two days, including committee meetings), held at the Board's offices in Washington, DC. The Board pays travel expenses, lodging, and a nominal honorarium.

In making the appointments, the Board will seek to complement the background of continuing Council members in terms of affiliation and geographic representation, and to ensure the representation of women and minority groups. The Board may consider prior years' nominees and does not limit consideration to individuals nominated by the public when making its selection.

Council members whose terms end as of December 31, 2002, are:

Council members whose terms continue through 2003 and 2004 are:

The GSA CHAMP provides Federal civilian agencies a framework for efficiently and economically transporting household goods (HHG) of their employees relocated in the interest of the government from one official duty station to another, both domestically and internationally. On average CHAMP saves agencies 52 percent compared to commercial rates. GSA has arrangements with over 280 carriers, both large and small, for shipping Federal employees' HHG. GSA provides a listing of available carriers for interstate, intrastate, or international shipments including American offshore moves. Agencies have access to this information through GSA's web-based Interagency Transportation Management System (ITMS).

GSA proposes to convert the current CHAMP IFF from a $145 flat fee per shipment to 2.75 percent of the net transportation charge per shipment excluding SIT fees. This is a procedural change only for the purpose of converting the flat fee to a percentage fee that equates to approximately the same amount as the current flat fee without increasing the overall cost to Federal agencies. Use of a percentage fee is the fundamental way GSA's Federal Supply Service (FSS) has assessed IFF's for essentially all of its programs since Congress authorized GSA to charge fees in 1987. This change will align the HHG IFF with GSA's funding mechanism for other programs and automatically will keep pace with inflation. The collection method will remain the same; that is, transportation service providers will continue to collect and pay the IFF to GSA, but based on 2.75 percent of a shipment's net transportation charge instead of a flat fee.

Representatives of GSA's Transportation Zone Offices studied converting the flat fee to a percentage basis to arrive at a percentage that equates to approximately the same overall cost for Federal agencies as the current flat fee. The American Moving and Storage Association furnished the Federal civilian sector's average shipment weight of 8,000 pounds and average distance of 1,000 miles for a domestic HHG shipment based on a sample of its records. The gross line-haul cost for a shipment of this size would be $7,681, and the average max pack would be $3,676.50. The top 16 CHAMP transportation service providers represent 81 percent of the volume of CHAMP moves, and last year their average discount was 52 percent. Using these figures the net cost of an average shipment would be $5,292. The IFF for an average shipment costing $5,292 at 2.75 percent would be $145.53. GSA does not have statistical data for accessorial items such as, bulky items, long carries, shuttles, crating, etc. Therefore, the percentage is hypothetical based on the best information available, and could be somewhat higher or lower than the current IFF depending on the actual characteristics of a particular move. The IFF would be more for heavier shipments and less for lighter shipments, but the IFF still will be embedded in carriers' rates and should balance out without any cost increase to Federal agencies or carriers overall, in using CHAMP.

The Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) amount must equal the sum of all shipment net charges reported in HTOS Paragraph 9-3.1.2, multiplied by the applicable IFF percentage identified in the Request for Offers. Any deficiencies identified will be handled in accordance with HTOS Paragraph 9-3.1.4.1. and 9-3.1.4.2.

Entry format is text entry ( i.e. left aligned). Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are numeric and must, if necessary, be zero filled from the left ( i.e., 00250 for 250) depending on the field size. Save the file as a comma-separated file (.CSV) then rename as necessary (.SHP or .ERS).

There is increased interest in research that aims to improve the health of disadvantaged populations. However, conventional research in these communities has a contentious history and offers limited opportunities to improve the health and well being of these communities. Policy makers are interested in increasing investments in participatory research because participatory research addresses several of the barriers to and limitations of conventional research. First, partnerships with representatives of the study population ensure that research addresses the priorities of the population under study. Second, community partners bring local knowledge to the research process, thereby increasing the understanding of the complex interactions among economic, social, and behavioral factors that contribute to health problems. Third, partnerships with the population under study increase the efficiency of the research process by improving recruitment and retention of subjects. Finally, the involvement of stakeholders and groups affected by the problem under study increases the opportunity for adoption of new knowledge and the translation of research into practice.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a promising model of research collaboration between researchers and community-based, including faith-based and other non-profit organizations. Researchers and community representatives are actively engaged throughout the research process, from the conception of the research problem to the analysis, dissemination and translation of findings. CBPR engages community members, employs local knowledge in the understanding of health problems and the design of interventions, and invests community members in the processes and products of research. In addition, community members are more likely to be invested in the dissemination and use of research findings and ultimately in the reduction of health disparities.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality convened a meeting on CBPR on November 27-28, 2001 to increase awareness and support for CBPR and to develop an action plan. Participants at this meeting re-affirmed that CBPR is an important model of research for AHRQ and other federal agencies because CBPR can potentially broaden the understanding of complex health issues and increase the relevance of research. Participants at that meeting developed a broad, national research agenda for CBPR.

The recommendations were aimed at the diverse sectors represented at the meeting: Public and private funding organizations, academic institutions, and community organizations. The recommendations that were specific to AHRQ included:

1. Fund CBPR projects and centers;

2. Develop funding mechanisms that facilitate the development of research capacity in community-based organizations;

3. Build a national repository for CBPR methods, tools, and resources;

4. Evaluate CBPR as a strategy to improve health and health care;

5. Develop a balanced portfolio that supports early and mature partnerships;

6. Convene a group to develop standards for CBPR; and

7. Identify and address institutional policies that deter community participation in grant making process.

AHRQ was reauthorized on December 6, 1999 to support research designed to improve the outcomes and quality of health care, reduce its costs, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to effective services. AHRQ accomplishes these goals through the establishment of a broad base of scientific research on the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services, and through the promotion of improvements in clinical practice. The research sponsored, conducted, and disseminated by AHRQ provides information that helps people make better decisions about health care. Since its reauthorization, the Agency's is also required to produce information that improves the outcomes, quality, cost, and accessibility of health care for the following priority populations: Inner city; rural; low income; minority; women; children; elderly; and those with special health care needs, including those who have disabilities, need chronic care, or need end of life health care. CBPR represents an important strategy to meet these objectives.

AHRQ uses mechanisms of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to carry out research projects, demonstrations, evaluations, and dissemination activities. AHRQ also supports small grants, conference grants, and training </fund/training/trainix.htm> through dissertation grants <http://grants.hnih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-00-076.html< and National Research Service Awards to institutions <training/t32.htm> and individuals <99005.htm>. The vast majority of AHRQ grants and cooperative agreements are investigator-initiated.

AHRQ uses the following processes to meet its policy and program objectives to conduct its ongoing activities in order to make the most productive use of its resources:

1. Needs Assessment. AHRQ conducts needs assessments through a variety of mechanisms including expert meetings, conferences, and consultations with stakeholders and customers of its research, publishing notices for comment in the Federal Register , as well as regular meetings with its National Advisory Council and government leaders. The results of these assessments are used to determine and prioritize information needs.

2. Knowledge Creation. AHRQ supports and conducts research to produce the next generation of knowledge needed to improve the health care system.

3. Translation and Dissemination. AHRQ's commitment to research extends beyond knowledge generation. AHRQ believes that findings must be useful and made widely available in accessible formats to practitioners, patients, and other decisionmakers. In addition, AHRQ synthesizes and translates knowledge into products and tools in order to support its customers in problem solving and decision making. AHRQ actively disseminates the knowledge, products, and tools to appropriate audiences. Effective dissemination involves forming partnerships with other organizations and leveraging resources.

4. Evaluation. In order to assess the ultimate outcomes of AHRQ research, the Agency is placing increased emphasis on the evaluation of the impact and usefulness of Agency-supported work in health care settings and policymaking.

The National Children's Study (NCS) represents a unique opportunity to understand the impact of health services on children's health and development within a large-scale, longitudinal study of children. This study would combine AHRQ's commitment to health services research on one of its priority populations: children, and two of its strategic goals: to support improvements in health outcomes and identify strategies to improve access, foster appropriate use, and reduce unnecessary expenditures.

Therefore, the NCS is a proposed longitudinal study of a cohort of approximately 100,000 children, following them from before birth through age 21 years old. This large-scale study seeks to examine the impact of physical, psychological, social, and economic environmental factors on children's health and development. AHRQ is seeking written suggestions as to the priority issues for research into children's health care services that should be addressed in the NCS. Issues should be considered priorities for this study if their impact has not been adequately studied in other research, if their impact can only be evaluated in a large study such as this, and if there is a large potential for impact on children's health. Supporting rationale and suggestions for research strategies should be included.

Suggestions should address one or more of the following:

• Age group to be studied: The nature of the proposed study will be to follow children from birth through age 21; for some of the cohort, mothers may be recruited during pregnancy or even preconception. Thus, participants will be followed in this study throughout childhood and possible before birth. However, we are seeking recommendations for specific age ranges to be studied for priority issues.

• General population or priority population to be studied: Should health services research within the NCS be focused on the needs of priority populations (as defined by AHRQ: racial and ethnic minorities, low-income populations, people living in rural areas and inner-city areas, and people living with chronic illnesses and/or disabilities), the needs of children insured through public programs, or the general pediatric population?

• General health care or specific conditions: Some research questions require specific tracer conditions (e.g., asthma, depression, etc.) to adequately study, whereas other questions may be best studies with a broad range of health services and conditions. Specific conditions studied in the NCS would need to be of sufficient prevalence or incidence that a sufficient number of children with the condition could be recruited in a population sample of 100,000 children. AHRQ seeks recommendations for priority conditions and issues in general health care, with rationale including the importance of the topic and assurance of sufficient number of children in the study to adequately study the priority issues.

• Environmental factors: For those exposures in the physical, social, and economic environment that have a detrimental effect on children's health and development, health services may have a positive effect by preventing the exposure on ameliorating the impact of the exposure on health. AHRQ seeks recommendations with rationale for priority issues concerning environmental exposures, broadly defined, in which health services may impact on the relationship between exposure and health outcomes.

• Components and structure of health services: What organizational and delivery components of child health care settings and characteristics should be examined for their impact on children's health outcomes? What specific processes should be studied? AHRQ seeks recommendations for study of a broad variety of health services, including not only care delivered in traditional inpatient and outpatient settings, but also care delivered through the community, the educational system, the juvenile justice system, and other venues. Recommendations should be given within the broad categories of mental health services, dental health services acute and chronic medical care services, services for people with disabilities, community health, prevention and anticipatory guidance, obstetric and perinatal services, and other.

• Content area of research priorities: The Institute of Medicine, in their 2001 report Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, identified six critical determinants of quality of health services: safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. In addition, care can impact on children with different needs, including: staying healthy, getting better, living with illness, end of life care. The framework of quality criteria and children's needs from the health care system form a matrix within which research priorities in children's health services can be considered. AHRQ is seeking research priorities within these content areas.

• Outcomes to be measured: What are the most important child health outcomes, long and short term, for which it would be important to study the relationship with structures and processes of health care under study?

• Methodologic issues: The study of health services within the NCS must take place within the constraints of the main study design. Within these constraints, what critical design issues need to be considered in a large-scale study of health services? Example issues in this category could include: oversampling of specific populations, time points for measurement, or inclusion of nested studies. Comments on the relative advantages or disadvantages of different methodologic approaches to answering study questions in priority research areas are also welcomed. For example, which questions can be addressed with observational data and which with data from intervention studies?

• Other issues in child health care services that do not fit into the categories above.

On January 28, 2002, CFSAN released a document entitled “2002 CFSAN Program Priorities.” The document, a copy of which is available on CFSAN’s Web page (www.cfsan.fda.gov), constitutes CFSAN's priority workplan for fiscal year 2002, i.e., October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for copies.) The 2002 workplan is based on input we received from our stakeholders (see 66 FR 37480, July 18, 2001), as well as input generated internally. Throughout the priority-setting process, we focused on one central question: “Where do we do the most good for consumers?”

In addition to adding a new emphasis on enhancing the security of the Nation’s food supply, the FY 2002 workplan continues to place a high priority on food safety, food additives, dietary supplements, and food biotechnology. In this year’s workplan, the Food Safety and Security section has been broadened by including additional food safety strategies: Food Allergens; Transmissible Spongioform Encephalopathies; and Chemical Contaminants, Pesticides and Other Hazards. Outside of these priorities, the workplan identifies eight other program areas and cross-cutting areas that need emphasis: (1) Nutrition, health claims and labeling; (2) cosmetics; (3) completing the move of CFSAN offices and laboratories to a new facility in College Park, MD; (4) enhancing the science base; (5) international activities; (6) enhancing internal processes; (7) focused economic-based regulations; and (8) management initiatives.

The FY 2002 workplan contains two lists of activities—the “A” list and the “B” list. Our goal is to fully complete at least 90 percent of the “A” list activities by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2002. Activities on the “B” list are those we plan to make progress on, but may not complete before the end of the fiscal year. Some activities on the “B” list are highlighted with an asterisk. These are the highest priority “B” list activities, most of which are 2-year projects that we are positioning to be on the “A” list the following year.

CFSAN intends to issue a progress report on what program priority activities already have been completed to date in FY 2002, as well as any adjustments in the workplan (i.e., additions or deletions) for the balance of the fiscal year.

CFSAN has responsibility for many important ongoing activities that are not identified in the workplan. For example, CFSAN's base programs in data collection, research, and enforcement are important and are ongoing. Rather, the workplan addresses primarily those initiatives representing something new or different that CFSAN needs to address in 2002, as well as priority initiatives that are being continued from the 2001 workplan. In addition, the workplan does not address the myriad of unanticipated issues that often require a substantial investment of CFSAN resources (e.g., response to outbreaks of foodborne illness).

FDA is requesting comments concerning the establishment of program priorities in CFSAN for FY 2003. The input will be used to develop CFSAN’s 2003 workplan. The workplan will set forth CFSAN’s program priorities for October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. FDA intends to make the 2003 workplan available in the fall of 2002.

The format of the 2002 workplan will be similar to last year’s workplan. FDA expects there will be considerable continuity and follow-through between the 2002 and 2003 workplans. For example, new initiatives aimed at increasing the security of our country's food supply will continue to be a high priority in FY 2003. Moreover, a number of goals inherently require a multiyear effort. For example, in 2003, progress will continue towards development of a centralized adverse event reporting system. FDA requests comments on other broad program areas that should continue to be a priority in FY 2003, or new areas that need to be initiated.

In addition, as noted, the 2002 workplan highlights certain “B” list activities with an asterisk. Many of these are 2-year projects that we are positioning to be candidates for the “A” list next year. FDA requests comments on which “B*” and regular “B” list activities (i.e., those not designated with an asterisk) should be elevated to the “A” list for completion in 2003. Finally, as noted, FDA requests comments on new program areas or activities that should be added as a high priority for FY 2003.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES ) written comments regarding this notice by August 20, 2002. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal: (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Office for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Information Consumer Choice Disclosure Notice.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0537.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: This information is provided by mortgages/lenders and used by prospective mortgagors/borrowers to determine if mortgage products other than FHA insurance would result in lower costs to the mortgagor/borrower.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 4,500.

Status: Extension of currently approved collection.

In accordance with the December 12 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the planning process and believes they may be adversely affected by approval of the resource management plan may protest the proposed land use plan decisions of the RMP/FEIS document.

The protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process. The protest must be in writing and within the date the EPA publishes it's NOA of this RMP/FEIS in the Federal Register . The protest must be complete and filed with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (WO-210, ms 1050LS), Attention: Brenda Hudgens-Williams, Protest Coordinator, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. If you wish to send your protest using an overnight express delivery service, the address is, Director, Bureau of Land Management (WO-210), Attention: Brenda Hudgens-Williams, Protest Coordinator, 1620 L Street NW, Suite 1075, Washington, DC, 20036. Also please send a copy of any protest along with all backup documentation to Karen Simms, Tucson Field Office, 12661 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85748.

In order to be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information:

1. The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest.

2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested.

3. A statement of the part or parts of the proposed RMP being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc., included in the document.

4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record.

5. A concise statement explaining why you believe the proposed plan is wrong. The explanation should include all relevant facts and reasons, and documentation rather than merely expressing disagreement with the proposed decision.

Single copies of the RMP/FEIS will be available at the start of the 30-day protest period at the BLM Tucson Field Office, 12661 E. Broadway, Tucson, Arizona 85748. The RMP/FEIS may be reviewed via the Internet at http://www.az.blm.gov. Interested persons not already on the mailing list may request a hard copy or a CDROM of the RMP/FEIS from the BLM Tucson Field Office.

The RMP/EIS analyzed four alternatives to manage natural and cultural resources, visitor use and access, grazing, and maintenance of desired resource, economic and quality-of-life conditions. Alternative 1, the no action alternative, represents the continuation of existing management decisions within the National Conservation Area and Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District. Alternative 2, the proposed plan or BLM's preferred alternative, emphasizes ecosystem management and the use of partnerships and collaboration to achieve desired resource conditions. Alternative 3 proposes allowing the greatest mix of land uses with restrictions to protect sensitive areas and with fewer road closures and restrictions than the other alternatives. Alternative 4 emphasizes land use closures and restrictions and limits on development to achieve desired resource conditions making it the most restrictive of the alternatives.

The proposed plan (Alternative 2) is designed to achieve or maintain desired future conditions developed through the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership process. Under the preferred alternative land use plan, the public lands are open to livestock grazing and dispersed recreation, both motorized and mechanized vehicles are limited to designated routes, and recreation is managed within three zones. Two utility corridors are established and the public lands are closed to mineral entry and location. The public lands in the planning area will be designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) upon approval of the RMP. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) includes a series of management actions to meet the desired resource conditions for upland and riparian vegetation, wildlife habitats, and cultural and visual resources as well as livestock grazing and recreation management actions.

This temporary concession contract is being awarded to the Davis Park Marine Services, Inc., Patchogue, New York. It is necessary to award the contract in order to avoid interruption of visitor services.

This action is issued pursuant to 36 CFR Part 51.24(a). This is not a request for proposals and no prospectus is being issued at this time. The Secretary intends to issue a competitive solicitation for offers for a long-term operator for various services, to begin in 2003. You may be placed on a mailing list for receiving information regarding the competitive solicitation by sending a written request to the above address.

The NPS is developing an amendment to Biscayne National Park's 1983 General Management Plan for management of the 7 stilt structures located in the northern part of Biscayne National Park in Biscayne Bay. In 1980, the park's northern boundary expanded and Biscayne National Monument became Biscayne National Park. In 1985, when the State of Florida transferred ownership of the bay bottom within the expansion area to the park, it also transferred the leases for the property, which the structures occupy. The leases expired in July 1999. The park's 1983 General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Wilderness Study, and Environmental Assessment recommended removing the structures before the leases expired. Because of numerous expressions of public interest in maintaining the structures, the NPS initiated a multi-stage planning process to identify and recommend future public uses of the structures consistent with NPS policy.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Death Valley National Park Advisory Commission, PO Box 579, Death Valley, California, 92328. Due to mis-routing of U.S. mail, the notice could not be published at least 15 days prior to the meeting date. The National Park Service regrets this error but is compelled to hold the meeting as scheduled because of the significant sacrifice re-scheduling could require of committee members who have adjusted their schedules to accommodate the meeting date. Since the meeting date has received widespread publicity in area news media and among the parties most affected, the National Park Service believes that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the less-than-15-days advance notice in the Federal Register .

Agenda: The June 25, 2002 meeting will consist of handing out the final General Management Plan for Death Valley National Park; Operational Updates on Park Activities which include the Furnace Creek Environmental Impact Statement and related water issues; the pending acquisition of Barrick Mines Inc. Administrative Site; briefing on the California Desert Park Foundation; Fee Demonstration project update; Natural History Association update; Timbisha Shoshone Tribe update; and a Citizens Open Forum where the public can make comments and ask questions on any park activity.

At 64 FR 34958 (June 29, 1999), the Department amended its regulations to improve program performance related to the certification of temporary employment of nonimmigrant agricultural (H-2A workers) in the United States. One improvement was to modify the requirement that an employer notify the State Employment Security Agency (now known as the State Workforce Agency (SWA)), in writing, of the exact date on which the H-2A workers depart for the employer's place of business. The rule states that the departure date is now deemed to be the third day before the employer's first date of need for the foreign workers. Only if the workers do not depart by the date of need is the employer required to notify the SWA as soon as the employer knows that the workers will not depart by the first date of need, but no later than such date of need. The employer also must notify the SWA of the worker's expected departure date en route to the employment, if known. The departure date is used as the starting date of the contract period for the purposes of the “50-percent rule” under 20 CFR 655.103(e). That regulation provides that the employer must continue to provide employment to any qualified and eligible U.S. worker who applies to the employer until 50 percent of the work contract period, under which the foreign worker, who is in the job, has elapsed. The employer's obligation to engage in positive recruitment ends on the day the foreign workers depart for the employer's place of business. The employer, however, must keep an active job order on file until the “50 percent rule, has been met. The amendment to the regulations regarding the departure date notification substantially reduced the reporting burden on employers yet continued to allow the SWA to properly administer the “50 percent rule”.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

DOL and the SWAs continue to use the dates listed on the employer's application to calculate the employer's responsibilities under “50-percent rule”. The departure date (the third date before the date of need) is deemed the start date of the contract period in administration of the “50-percent rule” under 20 CR 655.103(e).

The collection of information requirement is being extended and revised to reflect annual reporting hour burdens changes based on an increase in the number of respondents. Additionally, the collection was revised to reflect a change in the name of the State Employment Security Agency (SESA) to State Workforce Agency (SWA).

Type of Review: Revision.

Agency: Employment and Training Administration.

Title: Labor Certification for the Temporary Employment of Nonimmigrant Aliens in Agriculture in the United States; Administrative Measures to Improve Program Performance.

OMB No: 1205-0404.

Affected Public: Farms are primarily affected and other business or other for-profit entities.

Total Respondents: 6,711.

Frequency: Once.

Total Responses: 4,079.

Average Time of Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 679 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $16,975.

Total Burden Cost: $0.

Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The maritime industry has historically been a sector that has a high incidence of illnesses and injuries in its workforce. The types of work performed can be quite different in various parts of the industry, ranging from manufacturing type work in shipyards to longshoring operations. OSHA has targeted this industry for special attention because of the incidence of illnesses and injuries, and the specialized nature of some of the work. This targeting has included development of guidance or outreach materials specific to the industry, as well as rulemaking to update requirements, and other activities to help focus actions in the industry and reduce the occurrence of illnesses and injuries. This committee will be used to advise OSHA on these ongoing activities, as well as in new areas where the agency chooses to pursue or expand its programs and projects to further address these specific needs. The advice of the committee will help the agency in terms of substantive input on conditions in the industry, ideas that could be implemented to reduce illnesses and injuries, and feedback on agency initiatives in the maritime industry.

The Committee will consist of at least 12 members. The Agency encourages the nomination of individuals who can represent a broad range of relevant areas as possible Committee members. The Committee will fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed. OSHA is requesting that the Committee be chartered for a two year period. OSHA anticipates that during its two-year term, the Committee will meet no more than 3 times per year.

The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with the provisions of Section 7(b) of the OSHA Act (29 U.S.C. 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and 41 CFR part 102-3.

Nominees for committee membership should be qualified by experience, knowledge, and expertise. Interested persons may nominate themselves or others for membership on the Committee. Each nomination must include: (1) The name of the nominee; (2) the address, phone number, title, position, experience, qualifications and resume of the nominee; and (3) a written commitment from the nominee that he/she can and will attend regular meetings of the Committee and participate in good faith. In addition, please include an e-mail address or fax number, so that the Agency may acknowledge that it has received your nomination. (For information on dates and addresses for submitting nominations, see the DATES and ADDRESSES section of this notice, above.) Because of security-related problems in receiving regular mail service in a timely manner, OSHA requests that nominations be hand-delivered to the Docket Office, or sent by Express Mail or other overnight delivery service, electronic mail, or facsimile. Please do not send nominations by more than one of these media.

Consistent with the Department's recently-issued procedural rule on OSHA Advisory Committees (67 FR 658, 1/7/02), appointment of a person to this Advisory Committee for a fixed time period shall not affect the authority of the Assistant Secretary to remove, in his discretion, any member at any time. If a member resigns or is removed before his or her term expires, the Assistant Secretary may appoint for the remainder of the unexpired term a new member who shall represent the same interest as his or her predecessor.

This notice was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under sections 6(b) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and GSA's FACA Regulations (41 CFR Part 102-3).

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).

1. The Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and is organized as a Massachusetts business trust. Currently, the Trust is comprised of forty-eight Funds. The Investment Manager is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Each Fund has entered into an investment advisory agreement with the Investment Manager. The Administrator serves as administrator for the Funds. Both the Investment Manager and the Administrator are wholly owned indirect subsidiaries of Bank One Corporation, a bank holding company incorporated in the state of Delaware.

2. Some Funds may lend money to banks or other entities by entering into repurchase agreements or purchasing other short-term instruments. Other Funds may borrow money from the same or similar banks for temporary purposes to satisfy redemption requests or to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls such as a trade “fail” in which cash payment for a security sold by a Fund has been delayed. Currently, the Funds have a credit arrangement with their custodian bank (i.e., overdraft protection) and have established a committed line of credit with a banking syndicate under which the banks lend money to the Funds to meet the Funds' temporary cash needs.

3. If the Funds were to borrow money from any bank under their current arrangements or under other credit facility arrangements, the Funds would pay interest on the borrowed cash at a rate which would be significantly higher than the rate that would be earned by other (non-borrowing) Funds on investments in repurchase agreements and other short-term instruments of the same maturity as the bank loan. Applicants believe this differential represents the bank's profit for serving as a middleman between a borrower and lender. In addition, the committed line of credit requires the Funds to pay substantial commitment fees in addition to the interest rate to be paid by the borrowing Fund.

4. Applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to enter into lending agreements (“Interfund Lending Agreements”) under which the Funds would lend money and borrow money for temporary purposes directly to and from each other through a credit facility (“Interfund Loan”). Applicants believe that the proposed credit facility would substantially reduce the Funds' potential borrowing costs and enhance their ability to earn higher rates of interest on short-term lendings. Although the proposed credit facility would substantially reduce the Funds' need to borrow from banks, the Funds would continue to maintain overdraft protection with their custodian and would also obtain an uncommitted line of credit with their custodian. They would terminate their committed line of credit.

5. Applicants anticipate that the credit facility would provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This situation could arise when redemptions exceed anticipated volumes and the Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet redemption requests, which normally are effected immediately, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). The credit facility would provide a source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of portfolio securities.

6. Applicants also propose using the credit facility when a sale of securities fails due to circumstances such as a delay in the delivery of cash to the Fund's custodian or improper delivery instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. Sales fails may present a cash shortfall if the Fund has undertaken to purchase a security with the proceeds from securities sold. When the Fund experiences a cash shortfall due to a sales fail, the custodian typically extends temporary credit to cover the shortfall and the Fund incurs overdraft charges. Alternatively, the Fund could sell a security on a same day settlement basis, earning a lower return on investment. Use of the credit facility under these circumstances would enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity without incurring custodian overdraft or lower investment returns.

7. While borrowing arrangements with banks will continue to be available to cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed credit facility, a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than those offered by banks on short-term loans. In addition, Funds making short-term loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments. Thus, applicants believe that the proposed credit facility would benfit both borrowing and lending Funds.

8. The interest rate charged to the Funds on any Interfund Loan (the “Interfund Loan Rate”) would be the average of the “Repo Rate” and the “Bank Loan Rate,” both as defined below. The Repo Rate for any day would be the highest rate from investments in overnight repurchase agreements that is available to a lending Fund or to a joint account in which a lending Fund may participate. The Bank Loan Rate for any day would be calculated by the Credit Facility Team (as defined below) each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a formula established by the board of trustees for the Funds (the “Board”) designed to approximate the lowest interest rate at which bank short-term loans would be available to the Funds. The formula would be based upon a publicly available rate (e.g., Federal Funds plus 25 basis points) and would vary with this rate so as to reflect changing bank loan rates. The Board periodically would review the continuing appropriateness of using the publicly available rate, as well as the relationship between the Bank Loan Rate and current bank loan rates that would be available to the Funds. The initial formula and any subsequent modifications to the formula would be subject to the approval of the Board.

9. The Treasury unit of the Administrator (the “Credit Facility Team”) would administer the credit facility. Under the proposed credit facility, the portfolio managers for each participating Fund may provide standing instructions to participate daily as a borrower or lender. The Credit Facility Team on each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and borrowing requirements of all participating Funds from the Funds' custodian. Once it had determined the aggregate amount of cash available for loans and borrowing demand, the Credit Facility Team would allocate loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from portfolio managers. Applicants expect far more available uninvested cash each day than borrowing demand. After the Credit Facility Team has allocated cash for Interfund Loans, the Investment Manager will invest any remaining cash in accordance with each Fund's normal practice.

10. The Credit Facility Team will allocate borrowing demand and cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Credit Facility Team believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of filing requests to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative costs. To reduce transaction costs, each loan normally would be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by the Board on behalf of each Fund, including a majority of trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Funds, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”), to ensure that both borrowing and lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.

11. The Credit Facility Team would (a) monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms and conditions of the loans, (b) ensure compliance with each Fund's investment policies and limitations, (c) ensure equitable treatment of each Fund, and (d) make quarterly reports to the Board concerning any transactions by the Funds under the credit facility and the Interfund Loan Rate charged in the transactions.

12. The Credit Facility Team would administer the credit facility as part of its duties under its existing administrative services agreement with each Fund and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services. The Investment Manager would monitor the Credit Facility Team's administration of the credit facility and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services.

13. Each Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility will be consistent with its organizational documents and its investment policies and limitations. The Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) of each Fund will disclose all material facts concerning the Fund's participation in Interfund Lending Agreements prior to the commencement of such arrangement and at all times during the term of the Interfund Loans. No Fund would borrow more than the lesser of the amount permitted by section 18 of the Act or the amount permitted by its investment limitations.

14. In connection with the credit facility, applicants request an order under (a) section 6(c) of the Act granting relief from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting relief from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting relief from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions.

1. Section 17(a)(3) generally prohibits any affiliated person, or affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or other property from a registered investment company. Section 21(b) generally prohibits any registered management investment company from lending money or other property to any person if that person controls or is under common control with the company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act defines “affiliated person” of another person, in part, to be any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that the Funds may be under common control by virtue of having the Investment Manager as their common investment adviser.

2. Section 6(c) provides that an exemptive order may be granted where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy these standards for the reasons discussed below.

3. Applicants submit that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act were intended to prevent a person with strong potential adverse interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the benefit of that person and that are detrimental to the best interests of the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the proposed credit facility transactions do not raise these concerns because (a) the Credit Facility Team would administer the program as a disinterested party; (b) the Investment Manager would monitor the Credit Facility Team's administration of the credit facility as a disinterested fiduciary; (c) all Interfund Loans would consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments; (d) the Interfund Loans would not involve a greater risk than other similar investments; (e) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate higher than it could obtain through other similar investments; and (f) the borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise available to it under its bank loan agreements and avoid the up-front commitment fees associated with committed lines of credit. Moreover, applicants believe that the other conditions in the application would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.

4. Section 17(a)(1) generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, from selling any securities or other property to the company. Section 12(d)(1) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for a registered investment company to purchase or otherwise acquire any security issued by any other investment company except in accordance with the limitations set forth in that section. Applicants believe that the obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan may constitute a security under sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1). Section 12(d)(1)(J) provides that the Commission may exempt persons or transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the extent such exception is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under sections 6(c), 17(b) and 12(d)(1)(J) are satisfied for all the reasons set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) and for the reasons discussed below.

5. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid duplicative costs and fees attendant upon multiple layers of investment companies. Applicants submit that the proposed credit facility does not involve these abuses. Applicants note that there would be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or shareholders, and that the Credit Facility Team would receive no additional compensation for its services in administering the credit facility. Applicants also note that the purpose of proposed credit facility is to provide economic benefits for all the participating Funds.

6. Section 18(f)(1) prohibits open-end investment companies from issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to borrow from any bank; provided that, immediately after the borrowing, there is an asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all borrowings of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term “senior security” includes any bond, debenture, note, or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness. Applicants request exemptive relief from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent necessary to implement the credit facility (because the lending Funds are not banks).

7. Applicants believe that granting the relief under section 6(c) is appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the Fund, including combined credit facility and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based on the conditions and safeguards described in the application, applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other Funds pursuant to the proposed credit facility is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).

8. Section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 generally prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated persons of an affiliated person, when acting as principal, from effecting any joint transaction in which the company participates unless the transaction is approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1 provides that in passing upon applications for exemptive relief, the Commission will consider whether the participation of a registered investment company in a joint enterprise on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which the company's participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.

9. Applicants submit that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to investment company insiders. Applicants believe that the credit facility is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act in that it offers both reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment limitations. Applicants therefore believe that each Fund's participation in the credit facility will be on terms that are no different from or less advantageous than that of other participating Funds.

Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Interfund Loan Rate to be charged to the Funds under the credit facility will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate, adjusted daily.

2. On each business day, the Credit Facility Team will compare the Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is (a) more favorable to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate, and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.

3. If a Fund has outstanding borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the Fund (a) will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than any outstanding bank loan, (b) will be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral, (c) will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days), and (d) will provide that, if an event of default occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, the event of default will automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.

4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the credit facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets; provided, that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the Fund's interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the credit facility on a secured basis only. A Fund may not borrow through the credit facility or from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after the interfund borrowing would exceed the limits imposed by section 18 of the Act.

5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may, through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceed 10% of its total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one business day thereafter (a) repay all its outstanding Interfund Loans, (b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total assets, or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at which time the collateral called for by this condition (5) shall no longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceeds 10% is repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Credit Facility Team will mark the value of the collateral to market each day and the Fund will pledge such additional collateral as is necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures each outstanding Interfund Loan at least equal to 102% of the outstanding principal value of the loan.

6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the credit facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending Fund's net assets at the time of the loan.

7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.

8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.

9. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.

10. A Fund's participation in the credit facility must be consistent with its investment policies and limitations and organizational documents. A Fund's borrowings through the credit facility, as measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions and 102% of sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.

11. The Credit Facility Team will calculate total Fund borrowing and lending demand through the credit facility, and allocate loans on an equitable basis among the Funds without the intervention of any portfolio manager of the Funds. The Credit Facility Team will not solicit cash for the credit facility from any Fund or prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio managers. The Investment Manager will invest any amounts remaining after satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with its normal practice.

12. The Credit Facility Team will monitor the Interfund Loan Rates charged and the other terms and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report to the Board concerning the participation of the Funds in the credit facility and the terms and other conditions of any extensions of credit under the facility.

13. The Board of each Fund, including a majority of the Independent Trustees: (a) Will review no less frequently than quarterly the Fund's participation in the credit facility during the preceding quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting the transactions; (b) will establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the Interfund Loan Rate and review no less frequently than annually the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula; and (c) will review no less frequently than annually the continuing appropriateness of the Fund's participation in the credit facility.

14. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its terms and the default is not cured within two business days from its maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, the Credit Facility Team will promptly refer the loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator selected by the Board of any Fund involved in the loan who will serve as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans. 2 The arbitrator will resolve any problem promptly, and the arbitrator's decision will be binding on both Funds. The arbitrator will submit at least annually a written report to the Board setting forth a description of the nature of any dispute and the actions taken by the Funds to resolve the dispute.

15. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction under the credit facility occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions setting forth a description of the terms of the transaction, including the amount, the maturity, and the rate of interest on the loan, the rate of interest available at the time on short-term repurchase agreements and bank borrowings, and such other information presented to the Fund's Board in connection with the review required by conditions 12 and 13.

16. The Credit Facility Team will prepare and submit to the Board for review an initial report describing the operations of the credit facility and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds are treated fairly. After the commencement of operations of the credit facility, the Credit Facility Team will report on the operations of the credit facility at the Board's quarterly meetings.

In addition, for two years following the commencement of the credit facility, an independent public accountant for each Fund shall prepare an annual report that evaluates the Credit Facility Team's assertion that it has established procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the conditions of the order. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 3 and it shall be filed pursuant to item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR. In particular, the report shall address procedures designed to achieve the following objectives: (a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate, but lower than the Bank Loan Rate; (b) compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the application; (c) compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund borrowing and lending; (d) allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the Board; and (e) that the Interfund Loan Rate does not exceed the interest rate on any third party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at the time of the Interfund Loan.

After the final report is filed, the Fund's external auditors, in connection with their Fund audit examinations, will continue to review the operation of the credit facility for compliance with the conditions of the application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.

17. No Fund will participate in the credit facility upon receipt of requisite regulatory approval unless it has fully disclosed in its SAI all material facts about its intended participation.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. The Master Trust, the Feeder Series Trust and the Feeder Funds Trust are registered under the Act as open-end management investment companies. 1 The Master Trust, a New York common law trust, consists of five Investment Companies (individually, a “Master Fund”) each with its own investment objectives, policies, and restrictions. The Feeder Series Trust and the Feeder Funds Trust are Delaware trusts and are composed of five and two Investment Companies respectively. Each Investment Company of a Feeder Series Trust and Feeder Funds Trust (a “Feeder Fund”) invests all of its investable assets in a single Master Fund with the same investment objective and policies as that Feeder Fund. The Adviser is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and serves as investment adviser to each Master Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement (“Investment Adviser Agreement”) that was approved by each Master Fund's shareholders and the Master Trust's board of trustees (“Board”) (including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”)). The Investment Adviser Agreements permit the Adviser to enter into separate investment advisory agreements (“Sub-Advisory Agreements”) with subadvisers (each a “Sub-Adviser”) to whom the Adviser delegates its responsibility for providing investment advice and making investment decisions for the particular Investment Company.

2. Under the terms of the Investment Adviser Agreements the Adviser assumes overall responsibility, subject to ongoing supervision of the Board, for administering all operations of the Master Trust and for monitoring and evaluating the management of each Master Fund's assets by one or more Sub-Advisers. Sub-Advisers will be recommended to the Board by the Adviser and selected and approved by the Board, including by a majority of the Independent Trustees. Each Sub-Adviser's fees will be paid by the Adviser out of the management fees received by the Adviser from the applicable Master Fund. Each Sub-Adviser is or will be registered under the Advisers Act. Currently, each Master Fund has a single Sub-Adviser.

3. The Adviser will administer all operations of the Master Trust, evaluate each Sub-Adviser's management of assets and recommend to the Board the hiring, termination and replacement of Sub-Advisers. The Adviser will recommend Sub-Advisers based on a number of factors used to evaluate their skills in managing assets pursuant to particular investment objectives.

4. Applicants request relief to permit the Adviser, subject to Board oversight, to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to a Sub-Adviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trusts or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or more of the Investment Companies (“Affiliated Sub-Adviser”).

1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as investment adviser to a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides, in relevant part, that each series or class of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such matter if the Act requires shareholder approval. 2

2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.

3. Applicants assert that the shareholders of each Investment Company are relying on the Adviser to select and monitor the activities of Sub-Advisers best suited for the Investment Company. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the investor, the role of the Sub-Advisers is comparable to that of individual portfolio managers employed by other investment advisory firms. Applicants contend that requiring shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement may impose unnecessary costs and delays on the Investment Company, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly and efficiently in a manner considered advisable by the Board and the Adviser. Applicants note that the Investment Adviser Agreements will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. Before an Investment Company may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Investment Company in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Investment Company, within the meaning of the Act, which in the case of a Master Fund will be pursuant to voting instructions provided by shareholders of the Feeder Fund investing in such Master Fund or other voting arrangements that comply with section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii)(aa) of the Act, if applicable; or, in the case of an Investment Company whose shareholders have purchased shares on the basis of a prospectus or offering circular containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before offering shares of that Investment Company to the public.

2. The offering circular or prospectus of any Investment Company relying on the requested relief or, in the case of a Master Fund relying on the requested relief, its offering documents and the corresponding Feeder Fund's offering circular or prospectus will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to this application. In addition, any such Investment Company will hold itself out to the public as employing the management structure described in the application. The offering circular or prospectus of such Investment Company, or in the case of such Master Fund, its offering documents and the corresponding Feeder Fund's offering circular or prospectus, will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.

3. At all times, a majority of the Board of each Trust will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be at the discretion of the then existing Independent Trustees.

4. Neither the Adviser nor any Investment Company will enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Investment Company, which in the case of a Master Fund will be pursuant to voting instructions provided by shareholders of those Feeder Funds investing in such Master Fund that are registered under the Act, or other voting arrangements that comply with section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii)(aa) of the Act, if applicable.

5. When a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for an Investment Company with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the applicable Board of Trustees, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the minutes of the Board of the Master Fund and the Board of Trustees of the corresponding Feeder Fund, that the change is in the best interests of the Master Fund and its shareholders, and any Feeder Fund investing in the Master Fund and its respective shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.

6. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Sub-Adviser, the shareholders of the applicable Master Fund and Feeder Fund will be furnished all information about the new Sub-Adviser that would have been contained in a proxy statement, including any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of a new Sub-Adviser. The Trusts will meet this condition by providing such shareholders, within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Investment Company, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of each Investment Company's portfolio, and, subject to review and approval by the respective Trusts' Board will (i) set the Investment Company's overall investment strategies; (ii) select Sub-Advisers; (iii) when appropriate, recommend to the Investment Company's Board the allocation and reallocation of the Investment Company's assets among multiple Sub-Advisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of Sub-Advisers; and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply with the Investment Company's investment objectives, policies, and restrictions.

8. No trustee, or officer of a Trust or director or officer of the Adviser will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by the trustee, director or officer) any interest in a Sub-Adviser except for (i) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser; or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly-traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Sub-Adviser.